Liquid Nitrogen is the best. It will not allow the product to change states, once frozen. You keep it (the glycin)in a thermos, at 240 K degrees, if you place it in your freezer. Most home freezers is limited to -15 F degrees.

Obtain a metal thermos, and take it a part. Place the glycin in the inner shell, Pour 1 to 2 oz. of liquid nitrogen in the outer shell. Assemble the thermos and place it in the freezer asap.

You will need to do this 4 to 5 times a year, depending on how often you open your freezer. You can use hot ice, but believe it or not. Hot ice cost more.

To purchase liquid nitrogen, you will require a "Dewar Flask". Be careful, because you can freeze a finger, in no time. Any part of ones body that liquid nitrogen touches, can cause cell damage. That is why "hot ice" is somewhat safer to use and handle. Just wear gloves, when handling "hot ice".

Liquid Oxygen, is explosive with some organic materials, but freezing cold.

Bit too much hassle to faff around with liquid nitrogen. I am told though that glycin is stable when mixed with certain other substances. (But I don't know which).
It is interesting that my packets of Promicrol are very old (ie over 25 yrs old) yet still work normally, as far as I can tell. Promicrol comes in two packets. I assume one of them (the big one) has the sodium sulphite and the smaller one the HEAP and glycin. One would have expected the Glycin to be useless after 25 years, yet the packets still work. This is really surprising.
Maybe the presence of the HEAP in close proximity protects it from oxidation?

One of the things that very few people do not think about, is "freeze drying" of chemicals. Your mixture may contain the following, heap, glycin, and about 2 grams of sodium carbonate. They would mix the heap first, followed by the carbonate, then add the glycin in solution. The carbonate is needed to assist the glycin in dissolving, plus serve as an accelerator. Then 'freeze dry" the solution.

They could "freeze dry" it like they do today's coffee. And all you have to do, is add water.

There is no telling how they put that stuff together. But the glycin that I purchase from PF, will turn bad if left out at room temp for 4 to 6 months. That is because even at room temp the temps changes and moisture is created and that destroys glycin quickly.

More then interesting that you could find that HEAP Sulfate. The formulae is according " the developing cookbook " and not other reliable information is further available.
Did you buy a rest stock or it has been made in China?
Here in Europe it is impossible to get that HEAP Sulfate. A pity because it is also used in the Atomal formulae (Agfa) which has simmilar characteristics like the Promicrol developer.
In case you have found the right material I would be interested too.

Sigma email me, and told me, "no" USA imports allowed. And the Seller, wants the cash upfront, with no refunds. About $600.00 dollars for 250 grams, plus shipping and handling. Min. order 25 kilos. That averages out to $2,400.00 per kilo. That is $60,000.00 dollars or 29,000.00 Euros. You could feed half the homeless in Paris for that amount of money for a one week.

I am checking around the USA, with all the surplus chemical vendors, to see if they have any NOS stock. I only want 30 grams. I will not spend over $150.00 dollars for it. I have PPD and O-PPD, I will just live with that if I can not find any HEAP.

So just hold your horses and think this one through, just one more time.

One Chinese firm gave a "certificate of authenticity" but it was absurd. The certificate stated a combination of hydroquinone, potassium bromide, sodium sulfite and sodium carbonate ie just some rudimentary crappy development brew. Does anyone have any information on how HEAP was made? At least then, when I'm getting information from these Chinese firms, I can ask the steps that were used in the manufacture if they quote things that are chemically unlikely, I'll steer clear. The fact that about ten Chinese firms have offered me this chemical makes me suspicious. However, there is a CAS number for "2 Beta hydroxy phenyl aminophenol" and also a CAS number for the same chemical in the "cresol" form. If I could only get a CAS number for HEAP Sulphate then at least there is a accurate specification. The problem with dealing with Chinese firms is that they will always have a getout by saying " sorry, we misunderstood". A CAS number eliminates this entirely. Any information appreciated.
Ian

If it must be especially synthetically made you will have these idiot prices. My OPD 100g powder for the W665 formulae was relative expensive but around EUR. 25
Regular chemistry like Sodiumcarbonate EUR. 0,70 /kg. If you go for Ascorbic Acid or Citric Acid in the nutrition industry around EUR. 7 /kg.
If you have to go for P.A. chemical quality it can be really expensive and in 95% not necessary for photographic purpose.
The CAS for HEAP is: 43100-74-9

Fotohuis wrote:If it must be especially synthetically made you will have these idiot prices. My OPD 100g powder for the W665 formulae was relative expensive but around EUR. 25
Regular chemistry like Sodiumcarbonate EUR. 0,70 /kg. If you go for Ascorbic Acid or Citric Acid in the nutrition industry around EUR. 7 /kg.
If you have to go for P.A. chemical quality it can be really expensive and in 95% not necessary for photographic purpose.
The CAS for HEAP is: 43100-74-9

That is about right on the price for OPD. I paid $28.00 dollars for 30 grams @ 99% pure. I can get Ascorbic Acid or Citric Acid, for $4.00 dollars per 100 grams retail and $7.00 per pound wholesale. Sodium Sulfite and Carbonate is cheaper at $000.75 per 250 grams. And even cheaper if you go to swimming pool supply shops. And it is 98% pure. Sodium Hydroxide in liquid is $8.00 dollars per 64 oz. Borax is $4.00 per 2 kilos. 4-aminophenol is $8.00 per 30 grams 97.5% pure.

By OPD, do you mean orthophenyline diamine? I used to make up brews with PPD. The grain was extremely fine but I would lose at least 50% of iso speed.
Actually, I have played around with Microdol -X a lot. In high dilutions (around 1:10) and using long development times and restricted inversion, I could get shadow detail in very hight contrast situations that was remarkable. Trouble was, the film would have to be rated at 25% the box asa.

irivlin wrote:By OPD, do you mean orthophenyline diamine? I used to make up brews with PPD. The grain was extremely fine but I would lose at least 50% of iso speed.
Actually, I have played around with Microdol -X a lot. In high dilutions (around 1:10) and using long development times and restricted inversion, I could get shadow detail in very hight contrast situations that was remarkable. Trouble was, the film would have to be rated at 25% the box asa.

You should not think of ISO as the most useful speed index. Half of ISO is actually a more useful index. The old ASA speed rating before 1960 was in fact half of what current values are. It was thought that negatives were too dense and that thinner negatives were more desirable. The trouble is that for miniature film a thinnish negative that is developed less is more desirable, but not one that is exposed less (too much shadow detail is lost). Thinner negatives are in fact more desirable, but the way they are achieved makes a big difference. The increase in ASA speeds was wrong and I have been preaching about this for decades. Giving more exposure and less development achieves two things:

1) It causes finer grain because more of the slower, finer grains are exposed at any given density.
2) It causes finer grain because the largest grains are kept smaller due to the shorter development.

Shadow detail in photographs that are given double the ISO exposure (or slightly less than double) is noticeably improved with most materials. I rate most ISO 400 materials at EI 250.

Yes, OPD = ortho- Phenylene Diamine which is used in the W665 Hans Windisch formulae. Some other ultra fine grain type deveolopers are using PPD (para- Phenylene Diamine) but it is more toxid and staining like hell.
With all these ultra fine grain type developers you will loose at least 1F stop.
Here a result of FP200 in W665 (indeed E.I. 80-100):

I've fiddled with ppd in years gone by. I got quite good at developing Kodak Tech Pan film. Some brews required as low as 4asa. However, the grain from a Minox negative 8x11mm could be enlarged to 16x20" with no more grain than a 35mm (D76) negative enlarged to the same size.
I've written of loads of emails to Chinese firms, giving them the CAS numbers for HEAP. It'll be interesting if Atomal or Promicrol can rise from the ashes. If so, we should prefix the name with Phoenix. In the meanwhile, I'm going to research any ways of possibly stabilizing glycin at room temperatures. In this modern world where convenience is paramount, a deep freeze to store chemicals isn't going to cut the mustard. Have you seen that vacuum heat seal device for storing food? ( i think it's called the "Foodsaver". Maybe a good right vacuum, starving the Glycin of oxygen is the answer?
Ian

Vacuum sealing is a good idea. It only works on most foods, because there is salt in the food to assist in preserving it. Yet vacuum sealing "Glycin" would be a lost cause. There is no preservatives in the vacuumed "Glycin" to deal with the oxygen.

The oxygen will come from the condensation. Unless you can maintain the surrounding temperatures at a stable level to prevent condensation. Plus if one fails to remove enough air from the container, there will be spoilage.

Therefore, I have chosen to use a colder temp, to slow down the aging of the product. If I can keep it to a -9 degrees F, or colder. I can ensure that the product will not change states quickly, therefore decreasing its aging.

Thank You

KennyE

Last edited by KennyE on Sun Jan 12, 2014 2:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I was thinking more about both vacuum sealing and a freezer. If oxygen is the culprit, then both low temperatures and a restricted oxygen environment might offer very long term storage possibilities. I like glycin - for the very reason that it's so avid in its uptake of oxygen molecules but that very property is its Achilles' heel.
I haven't had anyone reply to various postings I've made about Promicrol versus Atomal. If anyone reading this has any input, I'd be really interested to hear your views. Since Atomal came out in the 1930's and Promicrol in the early 1950's I'd assume Promicrol would have the edge.
A good friend of mine used to do theatre photography in the 1960's and 70's. He used to rate HP3/HP4 at 1600 asa with Promicrol. His results are superb. - Check out http://www.terrycryer.com/
If anyone saw "Blowup" (1966) - Those black and white photographs are outstanding. I wonder what film/developer combination they used?
Probably Promicrol..........